Rezko cash three times more what Obama admits: Sun-Times Update: June 2007

posted at 11:43 am on March 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

When attempting to defuse an embarrassing situation, the best strategies rely on early and full disclosure in the hope that the eventual revelations prove anti-climactic. Barack Obama apparently hasn’t learned this yet, but the Tony Rezko trial may wind up schooling Obama on the principle. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Rezko and his associates provided three times as much money for Obama than the presidential candidate has admitted:

During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.

Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his “best estimate” was that Rezko raised “between $50,000 and $60,000” during Obama’s political career.

Obama, who wants to be the nation’s next president, has been purging some of those donations — giving charities more than $30,000 he got from Rezko and three of his business partners referenced in Rezko’s federal indictments. All three attended a lavish fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama four years ago.

Obama, however, has kept $6,850 from others who also are referenced in Rezko’s indictments. Obama also has hung on to contributions from doctors whom Rezko helped appoint to a state-government panel involved in some of Rezko’s alleged fraud schemes.

The connections to Obama have received more attention, thanks to the local Chicago media rather than their national counterparts. One of Rezko’s associates turns out to be Ali D. Ata, who worked in Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s administration. Ata now faces fraud charges for writing a letter on state letterhead on behalf of Rezko that lied well enough to get millions of dollars in loans. Rezko brought Ata into Obama’s camp as a contributor.

There is also Joseph Aramanda. He faces no charges in the Rezko scandals, but Aramanda allegedly played a role in a scheme Rezko used to exploit the Illinois state teachers fund. Aramanda also had a son who worked on Obama’s staff, and he also contributed to Obama’s campaign.

All of this — and more — centers on the Rezko-Obama relationship. Obama has tried to minimize his connections to Rezko, understandably, as Rezko sinks deeper into his federal trial. The Sun-Times and other Chicago newspapers keep finding more and more connections and showing that Rezko was more than just a contributor to an election campaign. Obama and Rezko have significant ties, and at the very least it calls into question how Obama could have remained ignorant of his friend’s corruption while at least indirectly benefiting from it.

He might convince people he had no knowledge of it. However, as more connections come to the light, the best he can argue is that he is so naive and unschooled that he couldn’t see corruption where it obviously exists. If so, how can he argue that he’s sophisticated enough to run the nation?

UPDATE: This story comes from June 2007. I didn’t notice that when I first read the story. It’s interesting, though, that no one has thought to follow this up since then, at least not in the national media. I think this shows why the Chicago media displayed such frustration in last week’s press conference in Texas in that their national colleagues haven’t exactly lit up the wires in picking up on their work.

Previous posters are right: What’s really clueless is assuming anyone could come out of local Chicago politics (or any large city, for that matter) without having associated with shady characters. Obama’s supporters have already discounted Rezko. When they’re hearing daily about raising $50 million a month, $160K over a number of years sounds like less than chump change, particularly when you compare it to the millions the Clintons have taken in internationally in Bill’s post-presidency. It’s beyond a wash.

I’m waiting for McCain to admonish the Sun-Times for hinting anything negative about Obama. For McCain to promote a civil and respectful debate with his opponents is contrary to the fact that you have to be a two-faced lying thief to be a politician in the first place.

He claims he has the judgement to answer that phone. But he doesn’t have the judgement to grow up in Chicago and work in the centers of power in Illinois and know what is going on in Chicago.
Most of his supporters might never now about Rezko, etc. because the whole MSM release of info on a need to know basis and that willing suspension of disbelief thingy.

When attempting to defuse an embarrassing situation, the best strategies rely on early and full disclosure in the hope that the eventual revelations prove anti-climactic.

Two days ago
Remember how Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton one of the most secretive politicians in America? That apparently applies to both Hillary and her husband as a team.

The Clintons have been getting away with murder figuratively, some say literally in the case of Vince Foster. They never disclose anything until they grugingly disclose a little after it becomes general knowledge. They have a perfect record 3 for 3 in elections for national government offices.

When attempting to defuse an embarrassing situation, the best strategies rely on early and full disclosure in the hope that the eventual revelations prove anti-climactic.

Two days ago

Remember how Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton one of the most secretive politicians in America? That apparently applies to both Hillary and her husband as a team.

The Clintons have been figuratively getting away with murder, some say literally in the case of Vince Foster. They never disclose anything until they grugingly disclose a little after it becomes general knowledge. They have a perfect record 3 for 3 in elections for national government offices.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that it is Bullshit when politicians get caught with dirty money and give it to charity to make the problem null & void.

In real life do criminals (which is what a dirty politician really is) get to return their ill gotten gains to avoid punishment? Why do we allow a different standard for “public servants?”

And yeah, I have a real problem (one of many w/Barack) with someone who cannot see corruption and illegality when it is staring him right in the face as a friend of 20 some years. He is either too stupid or to much of a liar for the job. Although by that standard Hillary and McCain need to step aside as well.

This story comes from June 2007. I didn’t notice that when I first read the story.

That may be, but the very fact that you didn’t know about it shows how much people NEED to know about it. As has already been said, this sort of information ought to be big news…and isn’t. Or at least hasn’t been, and I am fairly sure that if the candidate in question had an R after his name things would be different. Since it’s a D, well…no one cares much.

It’s time to change that, methinks. We might want to wait for September, though.

I was looking through Buckley: The Right Word and came across a section on Nelson Rockefeller that could have been written on Obama. Rockefeller, of course, was a liberal Republican, and said things in his speech (sometime around April 23, 1968) like:

“I believe deeply in such a new government, such a new leadership, and such a new America.
“We as a people have – right now – a choice to make.
“We must choose between a new division or a new dedication.
“We can live together as bullies – or as brothers.
“We can shoose a life of the jungle, or a life of justice.
“We cannot have both.
“We cannot live for long with parts and pieces of both.
“We must choose.”

In response, Buckley wrote, “We must cut the crap…it takes men of archaeological passion to find Mr. Rockefeller’s ideas in Mr. Rockefeller’s current prose.”

The problme here is not the fact that the Clintons are secretative and shady; everybody knows that. It’s that the cult-like following of Obama actually expected a Chicago politician represented ‘change’.

I hope John McCain has his people investigating these connections to the mob. I hope the GOP is investigating exactly where the 55 million just came from. I hope John McCain has the balls to use this information once the house has officially fallen on Hillary and her legs (sticking out from underneath the building) have been confirmed. Then and only then will I actually believe that Obama is on top of the ticket.

What is it with the love fest between organized crime (unions) and the DNC? What is it with the love fest between brutal murdering dictators and the DNC? What is it with the love fest between the American hating UN and all Liberals? Why is it that Clooney and Penn have openly embraced Hugo Chavez while denouncing America on a world wide stage? What the heck is going on with Democrats going to foreign soil and trashing America, only to return to America soil and recieve open arms and a hero welcome? What happened to the days when our soldiers returned home to American soil and received a “heroes welcome”? How far towards Socialism has this country moved in the past 50-60 years?

Since Obama is keen to divest himself of donations by Tony Rezko, when will he divest himself of his current house?

Th problem is not simply that Obama has acquired a $925,000 obligation as part of buying the house: an unexplained $300,000 discount on his house + effective control of the $625,000 lot (the yard to the house?).

The problem is also that the original offering was for $2.6million, an amount for which Obama simply could not qualify.

Someone, apparently the Reskos, used their influence to create the possibility for the Obamas to purchase the house (and an obligation).

So: in order to start coming clean, and lose this very problematic debt and obligation, when will Obama divest himself of his house?

During the 1972 campaign for president, Watergate was already percolating but not a full-blown scandal yet. There was a Herblock cartoon that came out in September that shows an elephant holding his breath underwater with “watergate” written on his side. The man above the water looking down (I can’t recall if it was supposed to be Nixon) was saying “keep holding your breath for two more months.”

Nixon was running against McGovern, so, short of knocking over a bank, he was going to be reelected. But, it all came back to destroy him, because he didn’t come clean, even after the election.

As others have said, Obama needs to come clean and take his chances. There are too many reporters that would love to be Woodward or Bernstein and break a gigantic story. If there is dirty laundry there, it will be found. Fortunately, there are six months before the Dim convention and 9 months before the election. Pleanty of time to out the “accidental Messiah.”

It’s time to change that, methinks. We might want to wait for September, though.

Bob’s Kid on March 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM

I’d rather see it trickle a little at a time…death by a thousand cuts…particularly if he is beating HRC. If it all came out now, then the drive-bys could claim it’s all old news, and not cover it at all.

No, this shouldn’t wait until September. The problem with waiting until September is that it takes time for enough people to hear about this, especially since the MSM will do its best to cover things up, and Obama might be able to squeak by with a bedazzled and ignorant electorate.

If these things are brought up NOW, and repeated by bloggers over and over, the MSM might have to cover the stories, and since the Dem primary campaign is still going, the Hillary campaign might latch on to these things to bring Obama down before it’s too late–for her. Since Hillary is not exactly squeaky-clean, there’s a risk in it for her, but is there anything to which a desperate Clinton will not stoop?

Sure, it’s easy NOW for Obama, who raised $55 million in February, to give Rezko’s measly $0.3 million to charity, but the point needs to be made that Obama got his start with Rezko’s money, and then keep digging for other connections, that Obama has also been bought, damaging his reputation for “new” politics as the same-old that’s been practiced in Chicago since 1968.

Can anyone trust a politician from Chicago? That goes for a certain Hillary Rodham, as well!!!